Thank you, Mr. Bell. I will go to Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this one, I am not too sure where I stand. Personally, I think we have to take into mind that the person we are speaking about here was put in place by the Members in the House, knowing that there is no actual training or course you can take to become a Conflict of Interest Commissioner. On the one hand, you are trying to be a lawyer. On the other hand, you are trying to give someone advice on what is right or wrong and somehow keep your head above water, knowing that you will be zeroed in on by the press, that they will want to talk to you every once in a while.

From what I see happening here, for the next Commissioner coming down the pipe, we are going to have to give them a whole list of what not to do and put it in the terms of reference to tie their hands from doing their job.

From what I see here, there does not seem to be an opportunity for due process for an individual or individuals who do not have opportunity to see exactly what their legal obligations are. From the way this is drafted, if you do not give us this, we move to plan b and if you don't give us that, we go to plan c. Three strikes, you are out.

I think there has to be a serious look at what her legal arrangement is with this government in regard to a contractual arrangement and what due process are we following in the context of what the responsibility of this committee was when they went to these public hearings. Was it to look at the Conflict Commissioner's duties and what she did or did not do?

I feel that, as a Member, in your statement, you state that the relationship between the Members and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has, in our view, broken down. I was not made known of that. I was not approached and asked what I thought of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and where I stand on it.

I think she is a person in circumstances that happen to be just caught in the middle of this -- I was going to mention Watergate again. I think I realize that the circumstances in which she found herself, being at the end of allegations of who she spoke to, when she spoke to and exactly what she said, if we are going to allow people who represent us in that capacity as Commissioners or the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, we do have to allow them some flexibility to do their jobs. If we are going to start muzzling people from talking to the press and having the flexibility of talking with Members on where things are going, I feel that in my case, it was the Board of Management that did not even give me the opportunity to respond against allegations made against myself. It was done by the Board of Management and they could go talk to the press before they came and talked to me. Now you are saying the same thing about a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, so I am finding it kind of hard to sit here and say exactly where do you stand on this one?

I for one feel that due process has not been followed here. You do have to allow time, basically putting a time deadline in place and if that does not happen, you basically go to the final option, which is the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. On this one, I cannot support it on the basis that it does not feel right and there has to be due process. I do not think that is taking place here. As a Member, I feel we should have been given that opportunity to make that choice on where we stand with regard to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the circumstances she finds herself in.

Everyone knew when she was hired that she was not located in the Northwest Territories, that the relationship was not on a day-to-day basis and the communication with her was usually over the phone. I feel that knowing these restrictions were in place and the circumstances were probably a lot different than having a Conflict of Interest Commissioner who was accessible to the Legislative Assembly over someone who lived in Vancouver was a problem. Yet knowing that, that was one of the conditions she was hired under. With the job that she has been trying to do from a distance, it is a factor.

I for one feel that due process has to be taking place here and I do not see it.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on the issue of this, and this was something I as a member of this committee had to look at very hard to try to make sure we were clear on what we were looking at. I reflected on the report itself, page 11, paragraph 3.13, was where the issue starts out in my mind, as I see it.

I will read that paragraph and going on:

1. 4 In the view of the committee, this single incident, as with all other allegations taken in isolation, are not determinative of an apprehension of bias. Nevertheless, the committee has carefully considered that on the 14th of March, 2001, one day prior to Ms. Roberts' discussions with Mr. Selleck, she acknowledged receiving the Minister's annual disclosure statement in which the Minister confirmed that she did not occupy any position of director with respect to any company.
1. 5 Having this information in hand one day and being confronted with serious allegations to the contrary the following day, the committee is at a loss as to why the Conflict of Interest Commissioner would not have contacted the Minister to resolve this apparent contradiction. At this point in time, no complaint was pending. The provision of the annual disclosure statement was freshly available to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, in this specific situation, for myself as a Member, I would have a hard time dealing with that. Whether it was inadvertent or not, if I have signed off my disclosure forms a day prior to being made aware that there is a contradiction of that, I would hope that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner of the day would have the courtesy to call me. There was no conflict at that point and part of the job of conflict resolution is to make note that this situation existed and I needed to correct it.

It is further pointed out in the transcripts of the taped conversation that in fact she was aware prior to this occurring. She was made aware before an actual complaint was laid. The part that really concerned me was the fact that the day before she received, fresh off the press so to speak, a signed document from a Minister of this government saying that she was clear on the issue and then a day later is interviewed by the CBC and, with evidence given, was made aware that there was a potential contravention here.

It was contrary to, immaterial to however she got it, how it was given to her, that the Minister's annual disclosure statement was not a correct one. Inadvertent or not, if I am a Member of this government and whatever day it will be, if something comes forward and someone lays -- or another media person does another interview to find something out there and I have just finished signing off a document saying no, in fact, to the best of my knowledge I do not occupy these positions or I have not contravened these acts, and here are all the things I signed on the dotted line, that I would be given that opportunity to at least correct.

The question is, either reconfirm what I said, call me up to say, "I am confirming this fact." That was not done in this situation. Unfortunately, there were a number of things that fell out of this and then started this nasty process. To me, this one specific thing, and with this motion, I stand by it as a committee member because I know as a Member of this Legislative Assembly, I have some serious issues with this particular aspect of what had occurred or not occurred, along with some of the other issues that are out there that some people say we should not pay attention to.

The fact is, after finding all of this out in a public hearing and testimony, it is hard not to be able to come back to the Assembly. It is this body that will make the final decision and I will stand by that decision. As part of this committee, I have to stand by my motion as to some of the incidents and this one being a very serious one.

It is not like there is a week or two, or a month that has taken place here. It is one day prior and that is according to testimony. That is why, in my case, I would support this motion and move forward with it. We must expect the best out of the people who are there in a job that they are going to be fair to the residents of the Territory if it is the residents that lay a complaint against us, but one whose role also is to ensure that Members are following the guidelines before us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have been able to find some of the sections I was referring to which I think are important because every one of these recommendations are very important. It affects careers and lives of personalities that have, by inadvertence, become part of this process.

Mr. Chairman, on page 10, paragraph 3.4, in the latter half of that paragraph, the committee states that:

The responsibility of the committee is to assess and determine whether an objective, reasonable and informed person would have legitimate concerns in light of all the facts and circumstances about whether the investigation could be conducted by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner in a completely objective and dispassionate fashion.

It states in paragraph 3.5, at the end of that paragraph that, "The committee must bring an objective and detached analysis." I think that is the right standard in determining whether or not this Commissioner conducted herself in a way that raises a question of bias on her part to make a decision about a complaint.

I also believe that this cannot be about job performance of her because it is not fair. I do not think it is fair for us to place any person or person's career in this forum and because she missed doing this or that or whatever, she should be sort of thrown out by a legislative mandate. I just feel that is too heavy-handed. That is not being respectful to the office of the Conflict Commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that while the committee stated their standard under what circumstances they would find a bias, in their reporting about the conduct of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner on page 30, paragraphs 6.15, it states, "The committee was both distressed and discouraged." In the fourth line, it says:

There appeared to be a pattern of passivity and a reluctance on the part of the Commissioner to be actively and energetically engaged in the issues affecting Members of this Assembly. She has failed to systematically meet with Members since her appointment.

I have two questions about this. One is, has anyone told her that she was not supposed to engage in a pattern of passivity and reluctance, that she had to be energetically engaged? I do not know what that means. If I showed up in a job, three months into doing my job, somebody is saying, "I do not like the way you are conducting yourself, your style or whatever."

The next paragraph says that, "She has failed to meet all Members." Well, I will acknowledge that she did not meet with me, but does that raise a question of bias? She failed to meet with everybody. I mean, listen to this argument. You have to say did she do something that clouded her judgment, that she had a prior judgment about whatever complaint the Member has. In my view, this is about our judgment about her way of doing things and I know that in our workplaces, we have a lot of personalities that we do not agree with. Some people are more gregarious, some people are morning people and some people are night people.

Paragraph 6.16 says, "She apparently kept no notes of important meetings with Members or other circumstances. She exercised poor judgment in agreeing to deal with the media when there was probably controversy."

I mean, these are a matter of judgment. I do not believe that says that she was incapable of making a decision because she had prior knowledge.

On page 31, 6.19, it says, "With respect to these proceedings, she approved written submissions placed before this committee which used strident and aggressive language." I do not know if this is criminal conduct or if this is conduct that goes to her having a bias. I believe that if you have been a professional for 20 years and you have a whole Legislature of a government that is challenging your integrity, I do not know how else you could be other than to be strident and to be aggressive in your defence.

My final point is that in reaching the recommendation on page 40, what I see is erosion of confidence in this Commissioner and I acknowledge that may be the case but I think that the mandate that this committee received from this Legislature was to look at the question of whether or not she was biased. This was not a job performance. All of this came about within three months of her new job and I just do not know how we can reasonably say -- we are not perfect. We are all people who make mistakes. We could be in an office in three months and be expected to know everything?

Finally, I think there might be an argument that can be made that says, having gone through all of this process, everybody has been stained, everybody has been sort of muddied. We just cannot go on unless we get rid of everybody.

That is really unfair to that person because she had to defend herself. She became a part of this process and this committee. This report seems to say things are so messy and it is all -- I do not know. We have to deal with it and we do not know really how to other than to sanction everyone who has been involved. I do not think that is the approach that I want to accept under the circumstances because I have to give respect to the office of a statutory officer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to attempt to refrain from speaking to this recommendation but I am afraid, sitting here listening to my colleagues, I cannot sit here in silence. I would suggest that I probably will not change anybody's mind on this particular subject, but I need to take this opportunity to put this on the public record because this conversation is bordering on contradictory at the least, and probably absurd at the most.

Anyway, some of the things that are being raised here on the issue of fairness are very interesting points. The Conflict Commissioner, according to the testimony we heard, is the definitive authority on conflict of interest in the Northwest Territories. There is no one else to whom to appeal, given her authority to make decisions and judgments with respect to Members.

I think that all Members should be concerned about fair and due process, if they have an allegation made against them, have a complaint made against them, and that is a fundamental right that we have as Members. There is a concept that you cannot fight an allegation and that is very true. An allegation is that. Once an allegation of conflict of interest is laid, the damage is practically done.

There is an obligation, for all Members' sake, you know -- forget about my situation -- that there be a level of fairness and understanding on the part of the person who is going to sit in judgment of you. So I think that when we talk about fairness, we need to not only think about the fairness to the Commissioner, but to the fairness of the people she is going to judge.

It is fine to say, "Well, you know, she was new at the job and you know, she did not necessarily know. We all make mistakes. We are not perfect." Those are nice platitudes but unfortunately, yes, people's careers and reputations are at stake. If such things as the Member states are not an issue -- for example, whether the Conflict of Interest Commissioner took notes or not. Could I suggest to you that that is a very fundamental and important step to take...

-- Interjection

I am just talking to everybody here. I mean, there is no need to be defensive. Taking notes is a very fundamental principle. For example, when I sought approval from the Conflict Commissioner with respect to a certain issue and received that approval, there was no record of it. When I asked questions of her in a meeting with respect to specific concerns I had, there was no record of any notes of that meeting. Well, I do not know how I could be protected then if a person went back to her and said was I protected to have received your advice and taken action on a specific thing if there is no record of it. So taking notes is a very important part of the process. These are not small things.

When anybody is going to have a complaint of any kind laid against them, whether it is in their professional capacity or anything, there are certain rules of conduct that apply. Professionals of any kind would be aware of that. Lawyers would be aware of that, that if you are going to be judged by somebody, it would be fair to say that they would enter into that and embark on that process with an open mind and would adhere to certain standards of conduct. One of those basic standards of conduct would not be, as the Member has already mentioned, to discuss that allegation or the details of it with other people, with the media. These are the kinds of things that would seriously make you wonder if you were going to be able to receive a fair hearing and that is all that anybody is entitled to, is fair process.

I have to say that when I read the report, although it maybe was not intended to be an examination of the performance of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, a lot of things just by the by came to light in the conveying of her evidence that I think the committee has picked up on. In fact, I am rather happy. I do not think there is a single concern that was raised by myself or my counsel that was not upheld in the committee's report.

I do not think we can just brush over this lightly and say, "Well, that person was just new at the job." I think that this Legislative Assembly owes it to us as Members to ensure that there are people in those very serious statutory officer positions who are up to a certain level of -- yes, maybe you cannot go to school and get a degree in how to be a Conflict of Interest Commissioner but it is a simplistic approach to say that this does not affect me so therefore I am not interested.

I think that it is the least respect we could show each other to be interested in fairness, if not just for ourselves, for someone else who might be going through this process. We do not know when any of you might have an allegation made against you and you would be very happy to know there is a very high standard of a process in place to deal with that issue. I just had to say that.

The advice that you receive from the Conflict Commissioner is your protection. If you cannot get that advice, if the Commissioner does not record that advice, if there are no notes taken, there is no record of it, you do not have any protection. That unfortunately was the case in quite a number of the conversations and information I had sought from her. I think that the committee is doing a service to this Legislature to ensure that we have the highest standard of competency available to us in the form of a Conflict of Interest Commissioner, a statutory officer of this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The chair will go to Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just address a couple of issues in the recommendation. It states that the Legislative Assembly has lost confidence in Carol Roberts as the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I personally cannot say that, Mr. Chairman. There may be areas that other Members have had experiences with and they will comment on that, and have commented on that.

What I was not aware of was we were looking at, in this whole process, the overall competency of the Conflict Commissioner. On pages 30 and 31, there are approximately seven items discussed. I cannot agree with all of these items, Mr. Chairman. It states she has failed to systematically meet with Members since her appointment to review and advise on their affairs. I cannot state that that is correct for me. Therefore, I have to interpret that this is an incorrect statement. That certainly was not the case for me.

She kept no notes of important meetings with Members or other circumstances. I do not know that. I cannot tell you that. I have consulted the Conflict Commissioner and I have been satisfied with what she has provided me.

In terms of engagement, the high standard of engagement with Members, she has engaged me, so I cannot again say I agree with. I feel the question of, is it broken to the degree that it cannot be reasonably rehabilitated? In my case, I do not have to rehabilitate. I do not find that I have a situation, with my respect, that needs to be rehabilitated.

So, Mr. Chairman, to summarize on this one, I am sorry but I cannot support this particular motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing from various Members that performance is not the issue, that there has not been bias found on the part of the Conflict Commissioner, therefore we should dismiss this recommendation. Where in the establishment of the motion did it say that they had to find bias before they could make this kind of recommendation? All that they had to find was something related during the process that caused them to tell us that they had lost confidence in the actions of the Commissioner.

Like Mr. Ootes, I have had no personal problems with Ms. Roberts. She has met with me. I have been satisfied with the advice I have received. However, the moment I found out that she had discussed a case -- and there is supposed to be a confidence here, just like solicitor-client privilege, between the Commissioner and the Members of this House -- she had discussed a case with Mr. Bayly, not being aware that the Minister had asked him to do that, not being aware that there was anyone else around but thinking that she was only talking to Mr. Bayly and this was supposed to be a call that was made cold to her by someone who is not connected to this case in any way. That is wrong. That causes me, that one event there causes me to lose enough confidence in her ability to perform the job that I have to support this motion.

It has nothing to do with what the committee found out. It has to do with what I heard and saw during the process. There is nothing that says that we, as a body, cannot at any time choose to revoke the appointment. There is no one, not one person in this room who can go to any of our statutory officers and say, "By the way, we do not think you are doing a good job." Not one of us has a right to do that. It can only be done collectively. All 19 Members. No, it is not something that is referred to the Board of Management. You cannot give up your responsibility. It rests solely and entirely with this body.

I think it is incumbent upon us to reflect on that and that we do follow through on our responsibility. There is no way around this. It is our responsibility. There is nothing in the establishment of this committee that means we cannot consider this motion. We can consider this motion whether the committee makes it or not. It is always in order for us to consider. I think that, Mr. Chairman, let's get on with it. Let's consider it. Let's have the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to just make a few comments as well. My comments are going to be brief but I think still important to make. First of all, I think the committee acknowledged that this process was not about the performance, it was not a performance appraisal of the Commissioner. I think if you want to be fair about it, some notice should have been given, as with any other employee, that this was going to be the case. I believe that it is not fair that, in the course of carrying out our work, we should draw conclusions without some notice being given.

I do not dispute the seriousness that Mr. Dent and others place on this. I think it is clear that there was probable grounds for a fair apprehension of bias. That is fine. Judges are found to be in that predicament as well. They are not thrown out of their job as a result of it. We have difficulties with the performance of this individual. I ask myself, how would I feel about this, supporting this recommendation five years from now? Ten years from now?

You know, maybe I would be in my rocking chair on a bench by the Mackenzie River thinking about those things. I do not think I could live with myself if I support this. It is going to severely damage an individual. For what? Is it that serious in my mind? I would have to say no. Even if it is serious, there has been no warning, no advance notice. In my view, we should issue a warning that some of the things we find are distressing and that we will not accept that, it is not to be condoned. It should be a warning, in my view.

There has to be some attempt made, I believe, Mr. Dent, to try and make good of something out of something like this. That is really my view. I do not want to pass judgment and severely damage somebody through a process that was not intended to do that. It is not fair and I do not think it warrants the damage that is contemplated here. I will not be supporting that. Thank you.

Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few comments on this issue, on this motion. I have been looking at the issues. Again, I would like to state how unfortunate it is that we have to be sitting here and giving our comments or passing judgment or whatever you want to call it on individuals we work with or that are part of this Assembly, but it has been quite obvious through this whole report that the key players in this have had a part in whatever damage has been done to reputations, to people's careers. For me, I find it very hard to be able to blame and punish one and then overlook the actions of another that may have directly impacted what is coming down and the ones who do have to be corrected.

I have a pretty simple life so my involvement with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, I have to say, was very brief and I found no reason to have a problem with her, but I, like a few other Members -- I guess when this committee was put, some of the information that was brought to light have given concerns in different areas. When it comes to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, it has brought concerns about her ability to do her job.

Is it fair to say we are going to overlook that because she was inexperienced or she did not have the capacity to do it? I have to weigh it in the context of everything else, that everybody involved is implicated and had a role to play in what this committee was looking at.

I guess I could have stayed in the chair and not said anything but I think it is imperative that we all give our feelings on this and we have to stand up and say that when something is done wrong or if you are not doing your job properly, you are going to be called to task on it, I guess, and this is a very serious job.

You have to be able to be of the utmost confidence that whatever your dealings are with her are going to be confidential. I, as well as some other Members, have lost some confidence in the fact that the Conflict of Interest Commissioner has that.

As hard as it is to decide on all these issues, we do have to face them and deal with them and so I have been thinking about this for a while and I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the motion. Mr. Bell.

Sorry, before we get to the vote, Mr. Chairman, I just thought it was important to again reiterate because there have been a lot of questions about this, as to whether in fact we were looking to find actual bias. I think it is a point that bears repeating. We were simply looking to determine whether or not an objective, outside person looking in would have had concerns about the Minister getting a fair process. I think that is the test that we were looking to prove. I am confident that we did find that a person would have had reservations and concerns. I think that really is enough for us to say that we as Members do not have confidence in going forward with a relationship with this specific Conflict of Interest Commissioner. I acknowledge it was very difficult. I acknowledge she was early into her mandate but I think this is such a critical point, Mr. Chairman, that it should not be overlooked. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. Do I hear question? The Member is requesting a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

All those against?